Christopher A. Coons headshot
At a Glance
Seat
U.S. Senator from Delaware
Born
September 9, 1963
Age 62
Phone
(202) 224-5042
Office
218 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510, Washington 20510
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Democrat|Delaware

Christopher A. Coons

Christopher Andrew Coons is an American lawyer and politician serving as the senior United States senator from Delaware, a seat he has held since 2010. A member of the Democratic Party, Coons served as the county executive of New Castle County from 2005 to 2010.

Source: WikipediaView full (CC BY-SA)
Voting Record — 788
Yes31%
No64%
Present0%
Not Voting5%
Party align94%
Cross-party6%
SoupScore
District Map

Senate District (Statewide)

U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Christopher A. Coons headshot
Christopher A. Coons
U.S. SenatorDemocratDelaware
SoupScore
Christopher A.'s ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 51 sponsored · 354 cosponsored
View profile

Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.

President Trump’s alarming attempted destruction of #AmeriCorps will damage communities across the nation. I am working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to press the Trump administration to reverse these unjustified cuts and restore a valued program.
NEW: The Trump administration has just placed the entire AmeriCorps agency (except a few senior leaders) on administrative leave
If chronic disease is an existential threat to our nation, why is RFK Jr. slashing research programs that could help of millions of Americans treat and prevent these very diseases? You can't solve a crisis by destroying the tools needed to fight it. www.nytimes.com/2025/04/07/h...
Ask the 70 million Americans who rely on Social Security what they think of it, and they’ll tell you it’s vital lifeline. Ask Elon Musk what he thinks of it, and he’ll tell you it’s a Ponzi Scheme—a fraud.
Congress has a constitutional role to play in strengthening our economy and protecting our national security from President Trump’s policies. My Democratic colleagues and I continue to work to fulfill that role, and I hope that soon, enough senators on both sides of the aisle will do so.
Time and again tonight, Senate Republicans were given the opportunity to take a stand against these disastrous tariffs and in favor of protecting Social Security. Time and again they refused.
Trump’s tariff policies have unleashed a national economic crisis, and tonight we saw Senate Republicans’ solution: slashing Social Security and Medicaid to pay for more tax cuts for billionaires.
Democrats are clear: we can focus on the Trump administration’s security failures and still hold them accountable for trying to cut Medicaid to pay for tax breaks for billionaires.
The Supreme Court has unanimously held that government officials can't punish private organizations they dislike for speech they disagree with. Trump's attacks on law firms are unconstitutional, and our nations' biggest law firms shouldn't bend to a bully. www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnb...
I'm glad that the Pentagon's independent inspector general is investigating this, but it's clear this administration's use of Signal to discuss sensitive information goes far beyond @DeptofDefense. That's why I've called on multiple IG's to start similar investigations as well.
JUST IN: The acting Inspector General of the Defense Department will review Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s use of Signal in a group chat with other key national security officials to discuss military strikes against the Houthis in Yemen last month, the IG’s office announced.
Social Security isn't a giveaway—you've earned it, just like your parents and grandparents. I'll keep defending Social Security so you get the benefits you’re owed.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History
788 total votes
ExpandCollapse

Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.

DateBillQuestionPositionParty MajAlign?Result
2025-02-06Kill the motionNONOMotion to Table Agreed to (52-47)
2025-02-06Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (53-47)
2025-02-05End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (53-47)
2025-02-05Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (55-44)
2025-02-04End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (55-45)
2025-02-04Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (54-46)
2025-02-04Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (77-23)
2025-02-03End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (52-46)
2025-02-03Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (59-38)
2025-02-03Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46)
2025-01-30End debateNOYESCloture Motion Agreed to (83-13)
2025-01-30End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (62-35)
2025-01-30Confirm nomineeNOYESNomination Confirmed (80-17)
2025-01-29End debateNOYESCloture Motion Agreed to (78-20)
2025-01-29Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (56-42)
2025-01-29End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (56-42)
2025-01-28H.R. 23 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (54-45, 3/5 majority required)
2025-01-28Confirm nomineeNOYESNomination Confirmed (77-22)
2025-01-27End debateYESYESCloture Motion Agreed to (97-0)
2025-01-27Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (68-29)
2025-01-25End debateYESNOCloture Motion Agreed to (67-23)
2025-01-25Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (59-34)
2025-01-24End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (61-39)
2025-01-24Confirm nomineeNONONomination Confirmed (50-50, Vice President of the United States, voted Yea)
2025-01-23End debateNONOCloture Motion Agreed to (51-49)
2025-01-23Confirm nomineeYESNONomination Confirmed (74-25)
2025-01-23End debateYESNOCloture Motion Agreed to (72-26)
2025-01-22S. 6 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateNONOCloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected (52-47, 3/5 majority required)
2025-01-21Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45)
2025-01-21Begin considerationNONOMotion to Proceed Agreed to (54-46)
2025-01-20Confirm nomineeYESYESNomination Confirmed (99-0)
2025-01-20S. 5 (119th)Final passageNONOBill Passed (64-35)
2025-01-20S. 5 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESNOAmendment Agreed to (75-24)
2025-01-17S. 5 (119th)End debateNOT_VOTINGNOCloture Motion Agreed to (61-35, 3/5 majority required)
2025-01-15S. 5 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESYESAmendment Rejected (46-49)
2025-01-15S. 5 (119th)Vote on amendmentYESNOAmendment Agreed to (70-25)
2025-01-13S. 5 (119th)Begin considerationYESYESMotion to Proceed Agreed to (82-10)
2025-01-09S. 5 (119th)End filibuster to begin debateYESYESCloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (84-9, 3/5 majority required)

Alignment stats consider only votes where a clear yes/no majority existed for the legislator's party. Cross-party marks divergence where the vote matched the opposite party majority. ↔ indicates cross-party divergence.

← PrevPage 16 / 16